The Ultimate Aspect Ratio For Panoramic Images

[panoramic]

Making rules to describe a panoramic image as being 1 to 2.5 needs to be changed.

For example, if a 180 degree fisheye lens made a 360 degree sweep, the aspect ratio would be 1:2. If a 180 degree anamorphic lens were used, then it might be possible to have a 1:1 ratio that certainly would be panoramic. (don't ask me where to find a anamorphic fisheye lens)

On the other hand, you could use a telephoto lens and make a 1:20 image that would not be panoramic at all.

Over the years I have seem many disagreements about the definition of a panorama and nothing made sense when rules were created, only arguments insued.

Let's just welcome the words "panorama" and "panoramic" and go about the business of making "long skinny pictures". Trust me, my 24 inch by 60 inch Lawrence camera will not finish out to a 1:2.5 ratio, and I guarentee it is PANORAMIC.

Ron in Alaska

 

[jamie young]

Hi Ron
I can't wait to see the photos from the Lawrence camera shoot.It looks really interesting! George Lawrence did a few photos around here in Madison, WI, which presently reside at the Wi State Historical society, and are really impressive. The ones I've seen were probably printed on a pop paper and are quite beautiful. How do you plan on printing them?
On pan aspect ratios, I tend to think of the "rules" as guidelines that often fit but not always.
Best, Jamie Young
Madison, WI

 

[panoramic]

Not to scare you, but Lawrence had some of the San Francisco images printed in platinum. I'd settle for POP. If we can really pull of the "San Francisco in Ruins" reshoot, it will probably be printed on conventional silver paper for the most part. Lawrence got $150 for each print a hundred years ago. If it is a good neg, and popular, maybe the same price can work today. Let's see, if I can sell 10,000 prints.....

Ron

 

[claytume]

Ron

I think a 1:6 ratio is about right so you're going to have to lose 14" off the top of your neg.........or the bottom.

Clayton

 

[claytume]

Not to scare you, but Lawrence had some of the San Francisco images printed in platinum. I'd settle for POP. If we can really pull of the "San Francisco in Ruins" reshoot, it will probably be printed on conventional silver paper for the most part. Lawrence got $150 for each print a hundred years ago. If it is a good neg, and popular, maybe the same price can work today. Let's see, if I can sell 10,000 prints.....

Ron

Ron

was there anyone else doing large panoramic platinum prints back then? All the Vaniman prints of NZ I've seen are platinum and I'm sure this was the only paper he used. These are 16 x 48" so quite small by comparison to Lawrence.

Clayton

 

[Early Riser]

I think 2:1 or greater should be the cut off in this forum for panoramic but I doubt is anyone shooting 6x12 cm will be excluded here.

 

[Ted Harris]

Some distinctions also need to be made between images from traditional 'wide format' cameras (e.g. Fuji GX617, XPan, Horseman SW, etc.) and those from swing lens or swing body cameras (e.g. Noblex, Seitz, Widelux, Cirkut, etc.) the difference being that the swing gives a very different image and allows an angle of view that more closely approximates what the human eye sees, at least it does with the Noblex 150 and other similar cameras that give you ~ 145 degrees. The two approaches are very different.

 

[panoramic]

Lawrence and Vaniman both had the advantage of being able to buy commercially made platinum paper.

Where is my wayback machine when I really need it? Did I leave it running the last time I went for a ride?

Clayton, when we get out to SF, I'll try to look up the site of Vaniman's studio. From what I gathered, it was in an area that survived the fire.

Ron

 

[claytume]

Some distinctions also need to be made between images from traditional 'wide format' cameras (e.g. Fuji GX617, XPan, Horseman SW, etc.) and those from swing lens or swing body cameras (e.g. Noblex, Seitz, Widelux, Cirkut, etc.) the difference being that the swing gives a very different image and allows an angle of view that more closely approximates what the human eye sees, at least it does with the Noblex 150 and other similar cameras that give you ~ 145 degrees. The two approaches are very different.

Yes Ted.........ultimately this forum could split to static and swing/rotation cameras. Would need to be alot more activity to warrant it.

Clayton

 

[claytume]

Lawrence and Vaniman both had the advantage of being able to buy commercially made platinum paper.
Ron

Ron

I read somewhere that at the turn of the previous century commercially made platinum paper was no more expensive than silver paper. The price skyrocketed around the first world war when platinum was used in detonating devices. All of a sudden it had a use much more valuable than photo paper.

Clayton

 

[Petzi]

Making rules to describe a panoramic image as being 1 to 2.5 needs to be changed.

For example, if a 180 degree fisheye lens made a 360 degree sweep, the aspect ratio would be 1:2. If a 180 degree anamorphic lens were used, then it might be possible to have a 1:1 ratio that certainly would be panoramic. (don't ask me where to find a anamorphic fisheye lens)

On the other hand, you could use a telephoto lens and make a 1:20 image that would not be panoramic at all.

So what would you suggest as a definition of a panoramic image? One that spans at least 120 degrees horizontally? Should we not consider aspect ratio at all for the definition of a panoramic image?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. So I get me one of those reflective hemisphere gadgets.

So I put it in front of a lens, set the camera pointing straight up, and capture a distorted 360 degree image.

What's the aspect ratio?

Would you definers of that which probably doesn't need to be defined very precisely classify the image as panoramic?

Howsabout I do all this on 35 mm film? Then what?

 

[sanderx1]

If one was using a long tele on a 617 (or even 624) will not get you anything that resembles a panorama, and even more so when you turn it 90 degrees. I don't think subject is a good measure of the cameras panoramicness at all. I might not like the limit running at 2.5:1 instead of 2:1, but that doesn't make it a worse description of what a "panoramic camera" is all about.

Also, I don't think panoramic is tied to film size - a 3:1 Minox is just as panoramic as a 617.

 

[jimgalli]

Hmm. Would you definers of that which probably doesn't need to be defined very precisely...

My mistake as a newbie to jump in with both feet and arbitrarily pick 2.5:1. It seemed somehow kind of "seat of the pants" to me and I am ignorant of arguments that were previous. It still seems kind of seat of pants but I rarely stick by any rule. Certainly a 22X48" picture made by a George Laurencian camera would unquestionably be a "panorama". Let's hope folks wouldn't be silly enough to not come to the forum over semantics. A panorama is a panorama. I suppose you could put a 6 inch lens on the Laurence camera and put circular text an inch away from the lens and fill the film up with it. Then it would be a 22X48" picture of text. I could do the same with the Cirkut camera and make a negative 80" long of text. It wouldn't be a panorama. Just me but it seems a bit silly to banter over. I'll see if Sean wants to change the forum to just the Header with no other descriptors.

 

[photobum]

Wait a second. Jim, your the damnable autocrat that picked 2.5:1? Your the guy that made my 612 Linhof homeless? I cast a curse of fungus on all your lenses. Not even area 51 is dry enough to protect you.

 

[jimgalli]

Wait a second. Jim, your the damnable autocrat that picked 2.5:1? Your the guy that made my 612 Linhof homeless? I cast a curse of fungus on all your lenses. Not even area 51 is dry enough to protect you.

Oh Dear. I better get a 55 gal drum of hydrogen peroxide ordered. Now I've done it. jg

 

[darinwc]

Some distinctions also need to be made between images from traditional 'wide format' cameras (e.g. Fuji GX617, XPan, Horseman SW, etc.) and those from swing lens or swing body cameras (e.g. Noblex, Seitz, Widelux, Cirkut, etc.) the difference being that the swing gives a very different image and allows an angle of view that more closely approximates what the human eye sees, at least it does with the Noblex 150 and other similar cameras that give you ~ 145 degrees. The two approaches are very different.

I think that all of the panoramic cameras, including swing lens and fixed lens, are specialty equipment, and could easily be encompased in one forum.

Standard cameras with cropped negs should be discussed in their respective forums.

View cameras with panoramic backs are kinda on the line. But I'm sure most users will post questions about the backs here and about the cameras in other forums.

"Author discretion is advised"

Darin

 

[naturephoto1]

Perhaps I am incorrect, but I do not believe that those of us using View or other cameras that produce "Panorama type" images should be excluded from this group. No question that strict Panorama cameras are some what specialized useful tools. But those of us using as an example our 4 x 5 and 5 x 7 cameras with our 6 x 12 and our 6 x 17 backs feel that we should be part of and would like to participate in this group as well. The same should hold true of those shooting 4 x 10 be it on a specialized camera or using a means of recording these proportions on 8 x 10 or cut sheet film. Certainly those shooting on cameras such the Linhof 612 Panorama cameras should have a home here.

Those of us using our view cameras just have the option of selecting the proportion of film that we will use to record our image and have the further advantage of using all those wonderful movements that these cameras offer.

Rich

 

[ian leeden]

As a fulltime panoramic photographer I use a huge range of equipement and I think of all the formats I use as panoramic.... I`ve been shooting this morning the glorious autumn colours here in central otago NZ...... I used 180 lens on my Linhof 617 the most often this morning because of the strong directional and intense light at the time...... yesterday I was mainly using a 28mm lens on a 220 film Roundshot, this again was due to the prevailing lighting conditions which was a nice soft but bright light giving very even lighting on 360 degree pans.
I use several roundshot cameras , a 10 inch cirkut and 12x20 as well as the 617 Linhofs and a 150 Noblex. The noblex only has an aspect ratio of 2:1 but is most definitely a panoramic camera.

The range I use goes from a 15mm lens on the 220vr roundshot which gives a negative of approx 50mm x 95mm this gives an image which is 110degrees vertically and 360degrees wide and yet only has an aspect ratio of less than 2:1 but is obviously very panoramic ( panoramic literally means to see all ) yet fails to meet the more than 2.5:1 concept.

The other end of the range for me currently is 1200mm lens on the 12x20 ! not a very wide view at all but the 12x20 format is generally accepted as panoramic.
What I`m trying to say is that you can`t put a formula to it... doesn`t make sense to...!!!

Cheers Ian

 

[jimgalli]

What I`m trying to say is that you can`t put a formula to it... doesn`t make sense to...!!!

Cheers Ian

The fact that I put a foolish aspect ratio in the forum name when I helped to set it up only reflects my naiveté as a relative newbie to things panoramic. I was working on the 12X20 last evening and I agree most things I would do with it I would consider panoramic. Now if I put the 18" Hyperion on and stand it on it's end for a portrait, well....

As far as exclusion, inclusion, there shouldn't be any. If a guys making negs with a 50mm lens on a 6X9 camera and trimming foreground and sky with a pair of scissors, it's probably a panorama.

 

[jbbooks]

....well....

As far as exclusion, inclusion, there shouldn't be any. If a guys making negs with a 50mm lens on a 6X9 camera and trimming foreground and sky with a pair of scissors, it's probably a panorama.

It would be if it were two and a half times as wide as it was high!

 

[Dan Fromm]

It would be if it were two and a half times as wide as it was high!

How about a trimmed 6x9 shot taken with a 38 Biogon?

 

[jimgalli]

How about a trimmed 6x9 shot taken with a 38 Biogon?

Of what Dan? Your toe nails? Uh-uh, I don't think so. :~'))

 

[Dan Fromm]

Of what Dan? Your toe nails? Uh-uh, I don't think so. :~'))

Well, they do wrap around a little.

But a 38 Biogon in Copal 0 will give a strip 81 mm x 24 mm that covers a bit over 90 degrees horizontally without vignetting. Whether one cuts the strip out of a nominal 6x9 frame is immaterial. Seems pretty panoramic to me, if a bit on the small side.

 

[Shingoshi]

I don't know if anyone else has already said this or not...

So what would you suggest as a definition of a panoramic image? One that spans at least 120 degrees horizontally? Should we not consider aspect ratio at all for the definition of a panoramic image?

But I think a good definition of panoramic would be any image where the vertical height is approximate to that of a 28mm lens (or wider), and having a horizontal width a minimum of 2x greater than it's height. Because I think the issue here is the perception of expanse in the horizontal plane. That being the case, the images produced MUST exaggerate a sense of immersion within the scene itself. It should simulate the perception produced by the periphery of the human eye.

EDIT: It should also be pointed out, that panoramic doesn't require the image to be anamorphic as is typical in film. Still photographers rarely if ever use anamorphic lenses in their work. Typically, they are the reserve of cinematographers. Anamorphic images in film mostly always have very wide aspect-ratios. But since those images can also be of very close-up subjects, they aren't panoramic. So that also implies panoramic must also refer to the scope of the surrounding environment in relation to the subject (or not having a specific one at all).

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao